...and the poor bastard who's marrying her is in for some trouble, I'd say.

Posted by: Rob G | February 21, 2008 10:14 AM

Yeah, but I bet he's no prize either.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | February 21, 2008 10:21 AM

What a lame blog. Tattoos do not equal sluttiness.

Posted by: Mozena Greezin | February 21, 2008 10:27 AM

In the 1920's my step-great-grandmother was wed in a flapper-style gown that showed her knees. Her mother was horrified. Nearly 100 years later, very few wedding gowns are above the knee. I'm not impressed with a wedding dress that can double as a nightie, but a fad is not necessarily a trend.

Posted by: naturalmom | February 21, 2008 10:38 AM

Oh good grief! Her daughter, if she is unlucky enough to be cursed with one, will look at the pictures and think her mother really was hot and the folks who were scandalized needed a vacation in some sheltered care facility.

Posted by: Charles Cosimano | February 21, 2008 10:44 AM

Rod, you forgot the part about how when the economy collapses and she's starving on Long Island, then she'll be sorry she had a tarty wedding dress.

Posted by: jaybird | February 21, 2008 11:00 AM

"Yeah, but I bet he's no prize either."

No doubt.

Posted by: Rob G | February 21, 2008 11:17 AM

If you thought this was bad you should have been at my brother-in-laws wedding. His now-ex wife had what I would describe as a mullet wedding dress. Short (mini-skirt) in the front, longer in the back. It displayed the tatoos that ran up and down her legs to everyone. Her heels were probably 4 inches? Of course this was in a chapel in Gatlingburg Tennessee. I came up with a joke for Jeff Foxworthy.
"If your tatoos are longer than your wedding dress. You might be a redneck".

Posted by: Tim F. | February 21, 2008 11:22 AM

I feel like "this trend" is probably only evident among a certain set of persons both too high class to have class and too low class to have shame.

Of course, she's a few years older than myself and my friends who have got married so far. Maybe we're just young and naive. We probably should have all got some tattoos before we got hitched.

Posted by: keh | February 21, 2008 11:23 AM

Sorry, mis-tyed, what I meant to write above is that trying to look "hot" does not convey the meaning of just trying to look beautiful, but IMHO, suggests wanting to look provactive, sexually desireable, arousing, etc....

Posted by: Erick | February 21, 2008 11:27 AM

I think this post could have been more Ignatius-y: "Look at this abortion of a wedding gown. These pagan trollops need to be lashed."

Posted by: jaybird | February 21, 2008 11:31 AM

I'm with Rod on this one. I have officiated many weddings as a minister. I have no problem with a woman looking beautiful at her wedding, but the beauty comes more from the joy of what is being promised, not from what she exposes. Dreary old me, I miss the days when you were more sexy for what you didn't show. Also, I like the quip that was around a few years ago: "Loved the wedding; now invite me to the marriage. --God" It's cute and cliche, but a good sentiment nonetheless.

Posted by: Andy | February 21, 2008 11:40 AM

Some guys just prefer butter.

Posted by: | February 21, 2008 11:46 AM

I am a long time lurker - never commented before. I sometimes agree with Rod, I sometimes disagree with him. Regardless, I usually find some food for thought on this blog. I found this post particularly hurtful as my father called me slut, trollop, tramp, whore, and other names as a way of controlling me when younger, even though I was hardly promiscuous or prone to wild behavior. It is so very, very easy to call women (especially young women) names, isn't it, when they have a different outlook on life than you. And besides, would a real slut even be getting married?

Posted by: hdelana | February 21, 2008 11:55 AM

For Natasha DaSilva, wherever you are:

May God be with you and Bless you
May you see your children's children
May you be poor in misfortune and
Rich in Blessings and
May you know nothing but
Happiness from your wedding day forward.

Posted by: John E. | February 21, 2008 11:59 AM

Yes, Tattoo's do equal sluttiness. Anyone with one gets a character downgrade. At best they reveal one as no more then a trend follower. At worst a tatto is telling me someone is plainly stupid. In between is someone who just wants to put themselves in opposition to the cultural norm against them. Just more stupidity.

Lots of Marines and Soldiers have tattoos. Are they "stupid trend followers" as well?

Full disclosure: I have two tattoos. This may make me a stupid trend follower, but then I also know that you don't pluralize with an apostrophe either ("Tattoo's").

Posted by: jaybird | February 21, 2008 12:01 PM

I feel sorry for this lady too. If the article truly reflects her opinions about virginity, modesty, and marriage you can tell she's headed down the wrong path at high speed. What can you do though? It's like Franklin Evans said in the post about an economic apocalypse, people won't change until something drastic happens to them. Maybe the light bulb will turn on for her one day. We should pray for her.

Posted by: RF | February 21, 2008 12:04 PM

JAVITM,
Uh, yeah. Either one does it because they're a follower or they're going "in opposition to the cultural norm".
Which is it?
I have tattoos. I'm quite fond of them. I didn't get them because they were popular, or to make a "statement". I got them where I can display them if I wish or cover them if necessary or appropriate. They are, in fact, quite beautiful art that reflects what I do for a living (teach ancient languages and cultures).
I'm getting married this summer. Would you like to call my fiance and tell him to his face that I'm a slut?

Posted by: Elizabeth Anne | February 21, 2008 12:18 PM

"His mockery of obscene images is portrayed as a defensive posture to hide their titillating effect on him." - Wikipedia on Ignatius J. Reilly

Kind of like what I told my mom, when we lived in England 1985-6, about the BBC-TV documentary on the "Page Three Girls" of tabloid enbreastature, that "it was so rude I turned the channel the minute it was over."

Or like Benny Hill as a buckled-shoe'd, Dutch-boy-lock'd, turkeyneck'd New England Puritan: An elderly man [Bob Todd] is in the stocks. What had he done wrong? asks Benny. ''Oy 'ad wicked thoughts, oy 'ad.'' Benny warns, ''Eah - you ought to find better things to occupoy yer moynd...I know - maybe you could *tell* me one of those wicked thoughts, so's if I, like, felt one of 'em coming on, I could keep it away.'' The sick-gray-faced onanist [*after Whitman* - Ed.] whispers to Benny, to the latter's mounting, grit-teethed grins. Pause. ''You wicked, wicked lecher!'' he yells, swatting him with abandon in projected shame. Then arrives a doe-eyed maiden in a dress, like Spring, busting all over. Welcomed, she explains, ''I just came by for a little social intercourse.'' She tells a growing crowd of her berry-picking excursion with her sister, abandoned upon rumors of a bear. ''Can you imagine that - me running through the woods with a bear behind?'' Soon, an entire mob is swatting the old gent and denouncing his lechery.

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 21, 2008 12:25 PM

"she apparently wants people to consider her a wild child, but doesn't want people to judge her negatively; you can't have it both ways"

Actually, you can! I consider being a wild child no terrible thing, hence, she can be seen as a wild child, and not judged negatively.

"Yes, Tattoo's do equal sluttiness. Anyone with one gets a character downgrade. At best they reveal one as no more then a trend follower. At worst a tatto is telling me someone is plainly stupid. In between is someone who just wants to put themselves in opposition to the cultural norm against them. Just more stupidity."

But there's nothing like watching the cthonic forces of ethnocentrism, purity-based religion, and mythic-membership culture break loose at Crunchy Neanderthalism once again.

Posted by: JPL | February 21, 2008 12:30 PM

Wow, I'll have to read through the comments here but what an atrociously hateful post by Rod! How tasteful and gentlemanly, to call this seemingly happy young bride a prostitute simply because of her choice of fashion. I doubt I'll go through with it, but it's enough to make me consider dropping the site from my daily reading.

I'm reminded of a great episode of Star Trek: TNG when Counselor Troi's mother is planning to be married, unhappily but because she's lonely. She plays along with her betrothed wedding plans until the last minute, when she has a change of heart and shows up for the ceremony in the traditional wedding garb of her culture - which meant, completely naked.

May our good God grant many, many happy years to all the sultry-looking brides on their wedding days!

Christ Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Doug Cramer | February 21, 2008 12:38 PM

the funny thing is, the first thing i thought when reading the article was "what a slut!", her comments are very revealing (as is her dress)

then i searched her name on google to see what this slut looked like, and found this blog :p

Posted by: himball | February 21, 2008 12:47 PM

Rod: "She despises the concept of virginity"??!!

What on earth leads you to that conclusion? She said: "For my generation, looking like a virgin when you marry is completely unappealing, boring even." She's talking about look, about appearance. It's a quote to a fashion reporter, for God's sake.

I suppose if you're proud you wrote this, you should forward it on to Natasha. I'm sure you'll be the vehicle for bringing a little of God's light in to her day.

Bless,
Doug

PS: While my wife doesn't have a tattoo, she does have a nose ring, which I suppose is just as much of a way of proclaiming one's trashiness to the world, by the arguments posted here.

Posted by: Doug Cramer | February 21, 2008 12:55 PM

NYT style articles are always worthy of an eye-roll - they trot out this wedding story every other year or so (It's a "new trend!" - white doesn't mean virgin! Eat it, conservative red-state types!). I know I've written posts on it before.

In any event, I don't much like tattoos and would think a wedding, of all places, would be a time to cover them up, but I understand people have different views on that. I do think it's sad about the "virginity is boring" attitude, but not surprising given the source (NYT-featured brides). My laugh, though, on this article was that I *was* a virgin on my (very Catholic) wedding day - but I wore a halter top satiny ballroom dress, and I *loved* it even though it definitely wasn't a poofy princessy or uber-modest affair. My mother did make me sew up the front V a tiny bit. In any event, the white definitely meant something to me and my husband - but I also wanted to feel and look good. Could there be a trend of people waiting until marriage *and* looking sexy?

Posted by: Kimberly | February 21, 2008 12:59 PM

I should add that I wasn't trying to (and didn't) look immodest or inappropriate for the church - but even as someone who thinks virginity is far from boring or irrelevant, I understand the impulse to want to find an attractive wedding dress, and that might not be as traditional.

Posted by: Kimberly | February 21, 2008 1:04 PM

Rod, I completely agree with you. I've told my kids (teens) that one should only have a tattoo if one is a prisoner or ex-con, if one is military and has actually seen action, or if one is a female advertising her easy availability. And are you aware of the trend of "branding"? Kicking the tattoo trend up a notch for those who want to be an eleven on the stupid scale.

Posted by: Laurrie | February 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Tattoo or no tattoo, a dress cut that low is inappropriate for church.
Having a tattoo does not make one a slut. I think they are nice on young firm bodies, but really sad on old ladies. Now that I am a middle-aged frump, I am so glad I never had one done.

Posted by: dhoff | February 21, 2008 1:13 PM

Possession of a tattoo is, IMO, a sure sign of serious mental illness. Tattoos are nothing but self-mutilation, even when done in the name of "art". I believe Theodore Dalrymple (the British scholar and expert on the practices and mentation of the lower orders) described them as sure signs of psychological problems.

As for the "brides" in the NYT article; I saw that article, and the females portrayed looked less like brides and more like sexual playthings about to go up on an Iskanderian auction block. That sort of sexual display is grossly inappropriate for a wedding. Weddings, after all, are supposed to be celebrations of two people becoming joined in the eyes of God, and only for one another. The sort of dresses shown in the article's accompanying photographs are expressly designed to be sexually revealing, and openly express an attitude of celebration of promiscuity on the part of their wearers. They are nothing short of an insult to the institution of marriage.

Whatever happened to modesty, piety and basic maturity ? A wedding used to be a symbol of maturity. The wearers of these dresses are walking symbols of puerile exhibitionism. The males who will soon be their husbands have my sympathies.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Posted by: Lord Karth | February 21, 2008 1:33 PM

Doug:

It would be interesting to know what percentage of "Ms." DaSilva's "mostly women" relatives are or have ever been married themselves.

My guess is that the said percentage would not be high; most likely it would be single digits.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Posted by: Lord Karth | February 21, 2008 1:48 PM

Possession of a tattoo is, IMO, a sure sign of serious mental illness. Tattoos are nothing but self-mutilation, even when done in the name of "art". I believe Theodore Dalrymple (the British scholar and expert on the practices and mentation of the lower orders) described them as sure signs of psychological problems.

As for the "brides" in the NYT article; I saw that article, and the females portrayed looked less like brides and more like sexual playthings about to go up on an Iskanderian auction block. That sort of sexual display is grossly inappropriate for a wedding. Weddings, after all, are supposed to be celebrations of two people becoming joined in the eyes of God, and only for one another. The sort of dresses shown in the article's accompanying photographs are expressly designed to be sexually revealing, and openly express an attitude of celebration of promiscuity on the part of their wearers. They are nothing short of an insult to the institution of marriage.

Whatever happened to modesty, piety and basic maturity ? A wedding used to be a symbol of maturity. The wearers of these dresses are walking symbols of puerile exhibitionism. The males who will soon be their husbands have my sympathies.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Now this ^ is what I'm talking about - sweeping and florid pontification on the perverse degradation of modern mores.

Ignatius would be proud.

Posted by: jaybird | February 21, 2008 2:01 PM

"Did I miss a turn and end up in Tehran?"

Wedding burqas for everyone.

Posted by: Daniel | February 21, 2008 2:25 PM

Yes, Tattoo's do equal sluttiness. Anyone with one gets a character downgrade. At best they reveal one as no more then a trend follower. At worst a tatto is telling me someone is plainly stupid. In between is someone who just wants to put themselves in opposition to the cultural norm against them. Just more stupidity.

A lot of my fellow Marines have tattoos. I don't consider any of them "plainly stupid", although perhaps they might have been following some sort of trend. On the one hand, there's pride in the Corps; OTOH, tattoos don't seem to be quite as unfashionable among Marines as among the populace at large. In my (admittedly limited) experience the presence or absence of body art appears uncorrelated with whether a Marine is "good to go".

I have no tattoos, and never seriously considered getting one. I was raised to view tattoos as "something that you just don't do", and I guess that training stuck. It would appear that different subsets of American society view tattoos with varying degrees of acceptability.

Possession of a tattoo is, IMO, a sure sign of serious mental illness.

I'll be sure to mention that to my buddies next drill.

Posted by: MI | February 21, 2008 2:28 PM

Interesting article, post, and comments.

One thing I find interesting is that as many people are upset by Rod's use of the word "slut" as by Ms. DaSilva's gown and attitude toward weddings. It reminds me of that old joke about a pastor beginning his homily with three sentences: that millions of people were going to Hell, that the people there in church that day mostly didn't give a damn about that, and that the people there in church that day were now more upset with him for using the word "damn" from the pulpit than they were about the millions going to Hell.

Yes, the word "slut" has loaded connotations, and yes, it's unfair that there aren't similar words used to describe men of easy virtue. But to focus on that is to overlook what the article describes as the view of a wedding as one's "red-carpet" day, the day on which any woman in America gets to pretend she's a Hollywood celebrity, complete with flesh-baring gown, covergirl makeup and hair, and splashy ostentatious bash afterward. Instead of a dignified event where decorum reigns and where people are realistic about their personal budgets, weddings have become lavish displays that have little to do with the solemn undertaking of matrimony, and everything to do with showing off one's body, "hotness," wealth (or, sadly, credit line), and ability to create an even more shockingly original and expensive affair than any of your friends so far has done. The groom is almost an unnecessary accessory to the whole business; certainly he's disposable soon afterward.

None of this is conducive to lasting marriages. The bride who expects to be a "star" throughout her wedding (and often throughout the equally unrealistically expensive honeymoon) will frequently resent settling down to the mundane drudgery of married life, and the groom who finds himself being expected to share the bills for this party and trip will sometimes experience "buyer's remorse" as he calculates just how much was spent, and just how long it will take to pay for it all (unless of course he really has married a woman whose parents were wealthy enough to pay for the whole thing, and who didn't mind their daughter tramping it up for her church-aisle substitute for Oscar night). Worse, so much focus on planning 'the wedding event of the decade' can take away from the focus on preparing to make a lifelong commitment to the person one is dragging around to invitation engravers and caterers and wedding registry consultants; how many women marry at leisure (as far as the party-planning phase goes) and then repent in haste once the all-consuming bash is over and done with?

Whether or not Ms. DaSilva displays the attitude and manner of a "slut" in this article seems to be a side issue. The question is, in displaying the attitude and manner of modernity's idea of the "bride" is she not unconsciously revealing a lot more than the flesh on her back--that is, is she not revealing that "The Wedding" has become so important that the little detail known as "the marriage" can't help but suffer?

Posted by: Erin Manning | February 21, 2008 2:42 PM

Erin,

Fascinating point: "Is she not revealing that "The Wedding" has become so important that the little detail known as "the marriage" can't help but suffer?"

This is of course the key dynamic. Taken on its own, this article doesn't speak to it much. After all, it's a fashion article. But of course we're all aware of the trend you're pointing out, and it is worthy of concern.

At the same time, I think sensuous wedding attire is a neutral point in this issue. I see nothing wrong with a bride wearing a sensuous wedding dress as part of a wedding within the financial means of she and her family, as part of an effort to create a passionate and beautiful and life-affirming event that will be recalled fondly for years and that may help her and her husband endure the inevitable, unsexy times that will at times be part of the difficult work of making a marriage.

I'm reminded of My Big Fat Greek Wedding. A joyful, passionate wedding can certainly be a great way to kick off a marriage.

Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Doug Cramer | February 21, 2008 2:52 PM

I'm old enough (58) to remember when the white dress and similar stuff was used to publicly shame non-virgins on their wedding day. (If a woman wasn't a virgin, she had to get married in the pastor's office wearing a suit, with only her parents present- if even they showed up- and nobody gave her any presents.) And, even if a woman was a virgin (or her status was unknown) people gossiped about whether a woman had been "entitled" to her wedding celebration. ("My neice's baby came only eight months, three weeks and 2 days after the wedding! I want my toaster back!")

Of course, the groom could have had any amount of sex and there was no social penalty.

So, I hope the bride in this post has thought seriously about the serious obligations she is undertaking, and I also hope she has a faith commitment and community to support her in her marriage. But I cannot regret that no one worries about the bride's virginity any more.

Posted by: Anne E | February 21, 2008 3:14 PM

**Whether or not Ms. DaSilva displays the attitude and manner of a "slut" in this article seems to be a side issue.**

I agree with you on this, Erin. So why spend so much ink defending the indefensible on Rod's part?

Peter is right. Rod decided to slander this woman in the name of Crunchy Con's "ratings" (page hits), knowing the headline is all people googling this would remember -- turning what would have been a very entertaining and thoughtful discussion into an ugly example of misogyny.

Posted by: Larry Parker | February 21, 2008 3:23 PM

As usual, America's Finest News Source is ahead of us all in squinting its second sight toward the day after tomorrow, pulling its own finger from we know not where and sticking it to the wind ensuing:

Pornography-Desensitized Populace Demands New Orifice To Look At

WASHINGTON— Jaded by the sight of what it deemed "run-of-the-mill" orifices, the nation's pornography-saturated populace released a statement Monday demanding a new bodily opening to leer at...

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/pornography_desensitized

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 21, 2008 3:33 PM

I just got back from the Ayaan Hirsi Ali event, which I'll be blogging about momentarily. But listening to her made me rethink my use of the word "slut" in this context. I should be clear that when I said earlier that I missed old-fashioned hypocrisy, I meant that I don't really expect brides today to be virgins on their wedding day (though I hope that they are), but that I wish they would still honor the ideal by the way they comported themselves on their wedding day. Even if the couple has been shacking up prior to marriage, I think it's a nice and even necessary tradition for the congregation to officially overlook it in the ceremony, and if the bride proposes to wear white, then we all become De La Rochefoucaulds, and appreciate that she's honoring the old standard.

When I say "slut," I'm being intentionally provocative, and as I indicated in a further comment below, the absence of her virginity is not what I mean by sluttiness, but rather her belief that her wedding day is an opportunity to show how little she cares about sexual purity. That's slutty behavior, period, and we shouldn't be afraid to condemn it.

However, I just heard a woman, Hirsi Ali, talk about how sexual purity is taken to such a psychotic extreme in Islamic culture that women are beaten, tortured and even murdered for having violated the code of honor. Hirsi Ali, who is no longer religious, said in her remarks that she believes religion should have nothing to say about sexual morality. That is clearly unacceptable to any remotely traditional religious person, but given that she's an atheist now, and given how badly she's suffered at the hands of the religious, one can certainly understand why she feels that way, even if one can't agree. That Islam and Islamic law is fanatical about sexual purity doesn't mean that a respect and an idealizing of sexual purity is wrong. Obviously there is a gulf between Christianity and Islam on this point.

Having said that, I feel discomfited, having talked privately with her and listened to her fantastic remarks, that I was so quick to use that kind of language to describe this bride. I don't change my judgment of her cheap morals and her bad manners, but I do wish I hadn't used that word.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | February 21, 2008 3:34 PM

>>>
That Islam and Islamic law is fanatical about sexual purity doesn't mean that a respect and an idealizing of sexual purity is wrong. Obviously there is a gulf between Christianity and Islam on this point.
>>>

No, Christianity and Islam are at two different points on the same continuum.

Posted by: John E. | February 21, 2008 3:41 PM

Many people on this board seem to have a shockingly low opinion of men...

But my real point: Rod, thank you.

Posted by: Elizabeth Anne | February 21, 2008 3:44 PM

Rod, whatever else may come, this I know: you have integrity. Thanks for that last post.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 21, 2008 3:48 PM

Anne,

Virginity has not only ceased to be a concern but its mocked. That is what I meant by "swinging too far in the other direction". I make no excuses for those who persecuted women, and let men off completely. Not only was it deplorable, but theologically incorrect, since we are all called to be pure both male and female.

The bride in this article represented, to me anyway" the "pornification" of American culture. Tattoos, revealing dresses, etc, put a pressure on women to emulate a look found in the lower parts of our culture. Many women today strive to be "Maxim girls".

Posted by: TipoftheSpear | February 21, 2008 3:55 PM

Rod, I lurk around here, but just wanted to say I really appreciate your 'update' and last part of it especially. I pop in every so often, and popped back out immediately this morning when I saw the word 'slut'. It was hard to stomach, and I didn't even want to read the post, but for some reason I came back again now after reading the NYT article, and was glad to read through to the end. I appreciate your further reflection. Blessings.

Posted by: Pia | February 21, 2008 3:57 PM

A real Christian--and/or a gentleman--wouldn't publicly call someone you don't even know a slut for simply having a tattoo. (Besides, she called LOOKING like a virgin boring, not necessarily being one.) Are you going to call for her stoning next? What's the difference between your inflammatory language and that of Islamic clerics calling for the bombing of America? Not much, as far as this Christian can see.

Posted by: Modesto | February 21, 2008 4:02 PM

Oh good grief, Modesto, if you can't tell the difference between a word of judgment and a call for violence, I doubt there's any help for you. Sticks and stones, you know. I certainly know the difference between being called an idiot, which people do to me muchly, and being threatened with violence. My word to you: calm down.

Doug: Wow, I'll have to read through the comments here but what an atrociously hateful post by Rod! How tasteful and gentlemanly, to call this seemingly happy young bride a prostitute simply because of her choice of fashion.

Who's calling her a prostitute? Is a slut a prostitute? I hadn't realized.

I think perhaps it's a Southern culture thing. I don't think I know many people, male or female, who regard "slut" as a taboo word. If my own daughter wanted to wear clothes I regarded as sleazy, I'd say, "I love you, babe, but you're not leaving this house dressed like a slut."

A serious question: do ye who are so offended by the word "slut" believe there is any such thing as a sexually immoral woman (or man)? If so, what noun would you use to describe such a person as a way of expressing disapproval?

I regret that there is no equivalent term for slutty men, and recognize that it's because of a sexist double standard. I find someone like Hugh Hefner to be utterly repugnant, and if my sons looked up to him in any way, I would consider them to be morally stunted. I absolutely will hold my sons to the same Christian standard of sexual morality as I hold my daughter. If either of them slips and falls before marriage, I will be disappointed, and will do my best to help them repent, get them to confession, and to live blamelessly thereafter. I wouldn't love them any less, or reject them by any means.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | February 21, 2008 4:15 PM

Rod, anyone who reads your stuff regularly knows your intentions were good with this post. Anyone who thinks you are one step away from calling for stoning, has stones in between their ears. It did stir an interesting conversation, for those not prone to hysterics. Americans seem to be reluctant to deal with the decadence that surrounds us daily in our culture. Any questioning of this stuff gets you taunts like "go to iran" or "you are a theocrat". Keep up the good work.

Posted by: TipoftheSpear | February 21, 2008 4:21 PM

Had to have a discussion this very morning with my 13 year old son, whose internet home page had several "bikini" sites. Even though there was no actual nudity involved, his mother and I both felt that such things were inappropriate and tended toward a very dangerous and slippery slope to outright pornography.

The discussion topic led to a heartfelt talk about the sacramental nature of sexual intercourse and the combination of the unitive and procreative aspects -- without both of which, the act is degraded to something less than is suitable for the dignity of a human-being. We also discussed (OK, I discussed, he listened) the objectification of women and why this is sinful.

Somehow I doubt very much that a woman who would have a "tramp stamp" (they're not called that for nothin') would have agreed with much of anything I told my son this morning.

Posted by: anon to protect my son's privacy | February 21, 2008 4:33 PM

Rod, as someone who takes issue with the word, I do absolutely think there is such a thing as a sexually immoral person. I also think that the article and picture you linked to provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the young woman in question is such a person, much less that she is deserving of so strong a word as "slut". And yes, it is a strong word. A scant few posts ago you seemed to understand that, but now you're backing away from it.

You're getting your hackles raised in condemnation on the basis of virtually no evidence except your own assumptions about her character from a short style article. Don't mistake quickness to judge and condemn for moral courage.

Some day, your beautiful little girl will be old enough to do things complete strangers will disapprove of, even when you support her completely. Would you be so blase about someone calling her a slut on the basis of so little evidence?

Posted by: allen | February 21, 2008 4:37 PM

Rod: "I think perhaps it's a Southern culture thing. I don't think I know many people, male or female, who regard "slut" as a taboo word."

Perhaps you're right. Having grown up in New Jersey in the 70's and 80's, and living in Massachusetts and the mountain West as an adult, I've certainly developed a sense that it is just not a word that is used in civilized company.

Maybe it's because I was raised in a family dominated by strong women devoted to Laverne and Shirley, but calling someone a slut is from my perspective pretty close on the classiness to scale to calling someone a nig**r. Slut isn't a taboo word, the kind that one is hesitant to spell out even out of context, but I certainly don't know anyone who would use it lightly.

And I still think that your smear of Natasha as a slut based solely on her tattoo, her choice of dress for her wedding, and a single quote about fashion was uncalled for. I'd be very interested in knowing more about her though. Perhaps you should contact her as a journalist, and see if you can find out some more details to either support or disprove your characterization of this young woman.

Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Doug Cramer | February 21, 2008 4:51 PM

Yeah, Rod's a jerk for calling this woman a "slut."

Worse, he's just a weak writer. Whatever points he tried to make were washed away by a poor choice of words. He certainly got more blog hits and comments though, so I doubt this will discourage him from eagerly traveling such a lazy road again.

Posted by: Matt | February 21, 2008 4:57 PM

I hasten to add that "...promising sex but then refusing to deliver..." does not include a woman's right to say no. I used it solely in the context of the process of manipulation, specifically around the woman's deliberate and conscious intentions.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 21, 2008 5:04 PM

Rod,
Yes, I find slut very offensive, and not a term to be used in polite company. While I don't think its anywhere near on par with the infamous N word, I think it falls very much into the same category of slur. Which is to say, its inherently a slur, and not simply descriptive. (And yeah, I think saying to one's child that they're dressed "like a slut" would be profoundly... um... icky.)
Yes, I think it's wrong to be sexually indiscriminate. The noun I would use for a sexual indiscriminate person is "Person". With the adjective "sexually indiscriminate" attached.

At least, that's my ideal. I frequently fall short of it. For example, if a sexually indiscriminate woman were hitting on my fiance? I would be hard pressed to not call her quite a few things, 'slut' being one of the kinder.

Posted by: Elizabeth Anne | February 21, 2008 5:09 PM

I know up here they're still posting notices about appropriate dress in Church. Maybe it's a New England thing. 90 degrees and no air conditioning? Don't care. No short shorts or revealing tops allowed.
[Or you could be politely asked to leave.]

Cuz that's what Jesus would do.

Posted by: aaron | February 21, 2008 5:16 PM

Anyway, careful readers will notice that I'd tell my daughter, "You aren't going out looking like a slut."

Which she will hear as, "You are a slut." The moment a girl starts developing, she starts hearing comments about being a "slut" by the boys and girls around her. Being called a "slut" is one of the worst things for a teen girl to hear and her dad saying, "You aren't going out looking like a slut" will be heard in an entirely different way than your Southern upbringing intended it.

I may have an "invertebrate sense of morality," but I know my daughters aren't going to be swinging from stripper poles or cutting themselves because their father says they are dressing like "sluts."

Posted by: Daniel | February 21, 2008 5:16 PM

Slut doesn't mean prostitute, it means loose. I don't think it's sexist either, in the sense that it is some kind of patriarchal double standard. It exists for biological reasons pertaining to the respective reproduction abilities of the sexes.

Also, does the word even have meaning anymore? How many guys does a woman have to sleep with in 2008 to earn the moniker slut? If you use 2008 as your benchmark, then I could see how a slut could be confused with a sex worker.

Anyway, I thought the title was funny, but maybe next time use skank or something to protect the virgin ears.

Posted by: Other Jim | February 21, 2008 5:20 PM

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Cap'n Crunchy's taste in four-letter words for lasses who love at once widely and too well, this Python fan recognizes a lucky-we-didn't-say-anything-about-the-dirty-*knife* consolation in the fact that he didn't reveal what a Wisconsiner might call a Fonda Lac of discretion, as occured on "V-J-J-Day" lass-tweak when Jane opened a main vein to the profane, live on "Today" on NBC,

http://tinyurl.com/33d2jj

in proving herself the most C-wordy of vessels for the promotion of Eve Ensler's soliloquacious speculum: the offending word, whose middle two letters transposed would rhyme it with Canute (and Klute, her Oscar-winner), was hitherto let slip on-air by NBC royalty-watchers in filing a fox-and-hounds dispatch on "Fergie", after having just seen the Duchess of York hunt.

As the late Prince of Denmark warned in ways her would not live to see vindicated by Mlles. Ensler and Fonda, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Flatio, then are dreamt of in your Monology." Or as my father used to say: Keep your mouth shut when you're talking to me - Loose Lips, Tongue Slips...

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 21, 2008 5:43 PM

I was shocked when I saw a poll of brides that stated most of them wanted to be a "sexy" bride as opposed to beautiful or any other adjectives. So, on her wedding day, today's bride wants her clergyman, family, in laws etc. to be wowed by her sexual appeal on her big day.I do not care if the bride appears virginal or not, but I do care that she wants everyone to desire her sexually. In some ways, it is not surprising that being considered sexually desirable is the highest compliment paid to a woman. Mother Theresa, an astronaut, scientist,award winning artist, a mother of the year will not impress at a social gathering or bring as high a status to her escort as the "Hot" date. Despite the fact that being "hot"does not seem to even insure better or more sex, or even inspire monogamy in her lovers. I cannot think offhand of any of the most famous desirable women whose partners did not cheat on them. Sad commentary

Posted by: | February 21, 2008 6:13 PM

NO. As a fellow southerner, I'm outraged that you've forgone the prefereable phrase, "split-tail hussie."

Posted by: mm | February 21, 2008 6:53 PM

"Isn't part of the problem that the actions and teachings of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists seem to indicate they are concerned not with sexual purity in general, but with the sexual purity of women?"

For years, feminists and their fellow travelers yelled "Double standard! Double standard!" about men's vs. women's sexuality. Then what did they do? Rather than trying to get men to hold to a higher standard, they themselves dropped the standard for women. Rather than concentrating on pressuring men to be less promiscuous, they became moreso themselves.

Now such a mentality is crawling back out of the toilet to bite them on the bum. And yet we still hear "Double standard!"

Make up your freakin' minds!

Posted by: Rob G | February 21, 2008 7:05 PM

Rob: I'm all in favor of communities holding both men and woman to high standards of sexual honor.

Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Doug Cramer | February 21, 2008 7:14 PM

Well, Doug, on the one hand I'm quite familiar with "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and so forth.

But on the other hand, I'm quite aware of Scripture's various warnings against immorality, licentiousness, impurity, and the rest, which a sincere Christian ought to heed.

I don't think to say that a woman who calls the appearance of virginity "boring" and says "Who cares about that part anymore?" in reference to it is probably not concerned about traditional morality is such a huge judgmental stretch. After all, "that part" meant more than having both bride and groom be virgins on their wedding day; it meant accepting and living according to notions like fidelity in marriage and the permanence of the married state. And the notion that few people care about "that part" of getting married any more isn't judgment: it's statistics.

Posted by: Erin Manning | February 21, 2008 7:32 PM

Doug, I'm sure you do. I wasn't singling out your statement for attack, but as an example of the double-standard mentality I so loathe. Whether YOU actually hold to what you said in your statement isn't as important as the fact that a lot of feminists do, and I find it galling, as Erin implies, that they can still accuse men of holding to a double standard when they are in fact the ones who have lowered it.

No offense intended, Doug, and I apologize if I did so.

Posted by: Rob G | February 21, 2008 7:37 PM

“For my generation, looking like a virgin when you marry is completely unappealing, boring even,” she said. “Who cares about that part anymore?”

I don't envy the groom, for he will be joined to a woman who may extend her prenuptial "insights" in the future to the union itself, perhaps concluding that looking married is "unappealing, boring, even."

Posted by: Francis Beckwith | February 21, 2008 7:58 PM

Goodness, gracious! Is Sheilagh the only person here willing to join me in expressing wishes that Ms. DaSilva enjoys a happy marriage?

Posted by: John E. | February 21, 2008 8:10 PM

Erin,

...Consent is something given randomly to whomever you feel like giving it to at any moment in time;

I had several flavors of reply cooking, none of them friendly, so I'll just take a deep breath...

I've never been intimate with a woman who approached sex that way, and it has not been for lack of opportunity. I can see, and respect, your sentiment, but I believe it is easy to see that most women do not approach sex that way, and not just the ones who agree with you.

Most of the women of my acquaintance in my generation -- being the ones in my social life, my sisters, etc. -- remember personally or directly from their mothers a time when consent was assumed without consultation, and many a slut was made because she didn't fight him off strongly enough, or was simply afraid to try, and the label was "earned" moments after the boy bragged about it. I have no doubt, friend Erin, that too many women have swung towards the other extreme, but that is what informs my objection here.

Here is your monogrammed Broom of Sweeping Generalities. Use it in good health. :-)

Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 21, 2008 8:12 PM

Oh, come now, Daniel. I never claimed it was acceptable as a Catholic to call names. The point I've been trying to make throughout the thread is that most people seem to be wailing and wringing their hands over the word "slut" and caring not in the least about "slutty" behavior.

Like in the various "Bratz doll" conversations we've had on this blog, there's this notion that we can't show *any* disapproval of loose behavior because to do so risks the ultimate postmodern sin: we might hurt somebody's feelings. And I reject that notion because the real harm being done by these behaviors goes way beyond hurt feelings.

And, Daniel, if I wore a blouse with one two many buttons unbuttoned, and did so purposefully, I would be acting like a slut, so caring whether someone called me one would be the height of hypocrisy on my part. (Generally however if I see a woman in this state and buttons are involved, I assume accident or negligence. As the {fashion, not moral} saying goes, if you have to ask whether you are displaying too much cleavage, then you are.) As I am neither a hypocrite nor a careless dresser, the matter has never come up.

Posted by: Erin Manning | February 21, 2008 9:10 PM

I'm still breathing, Erin. :-)

I would say, from my extensive but still anecdotal exposure, that pagans ascribe to the general morality of our society. No doubt, from Rod's opening POV, that would make many of the women sluts, but at least the ones I know would smile and take that as a compliment. ;-)

Seriously, what I wrote earlier is a pretty good summary: they find a balance of strong feminine sexual expression with a strong sense of personal responsibility and awareness of consequences. They have an attitude towards commitment that I think you might find laudable. See the modern usage section of this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handfasting The year-and-a-day aspect can be found in Jewish tradition, and in that usage by pagans might be better described as a betrothal or engagement rather than a marriage.

I was going to add that most of the pagans I know match my attitude rather closely, that sex is sacred in and of itself (an extension of the concept immanence, but I would caution not quite a direct extension... perhaps pantheistic would be a better term, but I digress) and never to be entered into lightly or without conscious intent. My hesitation is for the likely fact that they match my attitude because I sought them out. Self-fulfilling selection, as it were.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 21, 2008 9:46 PM

Skank, slut...whatever, Rod, you've still slipped a great deal in my book for your intemperate words. Conservative Christians make a big deal out of character, but I think you've kinda blown your cover and revealed something really nasty in yours.

Look, I'm the father of a young daughter. I'm not about to let her go out in public dressed in anything other than modestly. But if I was Natasha's father, I'd be calling for you to select your pistol and start walking 30 yards. You screwed up, and you'd be a better man to say you're sorry than to continue digging the hole you've already started. And you of course should know that. A man is judged by his words, and he takes responsibility for them.

Posted by: Modesto | February 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Wow, you have a 'slut' category for your posts? Awesome.
You fake Christians crack me up. You never remember the "Judge not lest ye be judged" line.

Posted by: tgb1000 | February 21, 2008 10:28 PM

Very disappointed in Rod for weaseling out of his gracious apology on the blog (and two thumbs up for Hirsi Ali) with his, "Well it was OK anyway because she's still a (pick your alternative but just as disgusting adjective)."

Not to mention Erin serving as his wing woman to try to give him female cover.

Erin, when you said you don't care that calling someone a slut is rude, you made everyone else's point. CALLING A WOMAN A SLUT **IS** RUDE. Incredibly so, in fact. (And especially since you don't have a camera in her bedroom to document her supposed harlotry.)

The offense isn't what SHE thinks of it; hell, for all I know, she may be proud of the word "slut." (Just as some African-Americans like calling each other the N-word, inexplicably IMHO.) The offense is that we would think of a woman we don't know in so noxious a way, as one poster inexactly but still fairly made the analogy, as an outsider calling an African-American the N-word.

(Think about that as you prepare for your future "Don't go out there looking like a slut" speech to your daughter, Rod.)

All Rod knows about this woman is what she told the New York Times. Which just makes my original point -- quite likely what makes this woman a "slut" in the eyes of Rod and others is not her choice of wedding dress, but her choice of blabbing about it to the national media.

Hell of an attitude for a journalist.

Posted by: Larry Parker | February 21, 2008 10:45 PM

I don't change my judgment of her cheap morals and her bad manners.

It's a tattoo, Mr. Dreher. I mean, seriously, calm down, old boy. It's a tattoo.

But I'm really glad you don't have the power to put these nasty women in the stocks. Yet.

Posted by: Michael Bérubé | February 21, 2008 10:50 PM

Yes, Larry, calling a woman a slut, even if she is one, is rude.

And we should all try hard not to be rude to each other, and it would be nice if we could all get along, and I'd like to buy the world a Coke, were it not for my lamentable inability to come up with the billions of dollars it would take to do this.

But the *point* of what Rod wrote, aside from all this hand-flapping about a rude word, is that we as a society no longer think of sexual morality as even an IDEAL. It's just "unappealing, boring even," to quote the fashion-impaired Ms. DaSilva.

The consequences of this have been far worse than a little rudeness here and there. The consequences of this have been children without fathers or mothers, children shuffled from one divorced parent to another, children being raised by grandparents while the parents cohabit, break up, find new partners and have more children so they can start the cycle all over again, children falling through the cracks into all sorts of poverty and abuse, all because it's "unappealing, boring even" to admit that the old morality had its good points and that as a society we might be lots better off if we still adhered to most of it.

Once and for all, I think we're all--even Rod--agreed that the word "slut" ended up being unnecessarily inflammatory to some here (though I do think regional usage varies, and may make the label more unacceptable in some places than it is in others). A better word, perhaps, would be "libertine." Surely in our enlightened days women who behave without moral restraint have earned the right to be called by that name, which was formerly the term of disapproval directed only at a man who cared nothing for morality.

Posted by: Erin Manning | February 21, 2008 11:05 PM